Argumentation & reasoning
Here you can find foundational argumentation exercises that will help you and your training participants practice the argument structure and learn to clearly convey ideas.
Objective:
To show participants how to find the connection between a thesis and arguments in a written text, and to analyze the structure of argumentation: thesis, arguments, and illustrations.
Number of participants:
2 to 25
Age range:
16+
Duration:
45 minutes
How to conduct:
To show participants how to find the connection between a thesis and arguments in a written text, and to analyze the structure of argumentation: thesis, arguments, and illustrations.
Modification (for advanced groups):
Ask the participants to formulate their own theses regarding the text and provide arguments to support these theses.
After that, participants present their results.
Note:
If you are conducting the exercise with high school students or college students, draw their attention to the semantic and logical connection between the thesis and the arguments. Explain that an argument can have a complex structure: in certain cases, a sentence is not enough for a whole argument, and an entire paragraph or section of the text might be dedicated to it.
Ask the participants to formulate their own theses regarding the text and provide arguments to support these theses.
After that, participants present their results.
Note:
If you are conducting the exercise with high school students or college students, draw their attention to the semantic and logical connection between the thesis and the arguments. Explain that an argument can have a complex structure: in certain cases, a sentence is not enough for a whole argument, and an entire paragraph or section of the text might be dedicated to it.
Objective:
To help participants practice their argumentation and counter-argumentation skills.
Number of participants:
6 to 30
Age range:
10+
Duration:
90–120 minutes
How to conduct:
Divide participants into groups of 5–6 people.
Introduce the role play setting: participants are delegates from different galaxies of the Universe. Every hundred years, the delegates gather to discuss important intergalactic laws. If a law is passed, it will be in effect in the whole Universe for the next 1000 years. Therefore, while making a decision, each delegate must be impartial and rely not on personal likes and preferences, but on the strength of arguments.
Give teams problem situations appropriate to their age (one per team). Comment on the questions that may arise around the topic.
Introduce the role play setting: participants are delegates from different galaxies of the Universe. Every hundred years, the delegates gather to discuss important intergalactic laws. If a law is passed, it will be in effect in the whole Universe for the next 1000 years. Therefore, while making a decision, each delegate must be impartial and rely not on personal likes and preferences, but on the strength of arguments.
Give teams problem situations appropriate to their age (one per team). Comment on the questions that may arise around the topic.
Example:
If we create robots that can replace humans in performing work, this will lead to certain changes in the economy and employment. Galaxy N requests a decision: is it acceptable to invest resources in the development of robots? What arguments can you provide?
Allow time to investigate the issue. Then each team must present arguments for and against (having worked through the arguments and counter-arguments of the decision).
Each team reads out their arguments, the others listen, ask questions, and then vote. Before voting, it is important to remind them that the vote should be based on the strongest arguments. Participants can voluntarily explain why they are voting in a certain way and which arguments they find most convincing.
The decision of the plenary session is recorded on the board, then the next issue is considered.
Conduct a reflection activity.
Note:
You can inform the teams in advance of the space-themed role play, so participants can prepare names, costumes, and other attributes. This exercise resembles Descartes' Square, so it can be conducted before introducing participants to this technique. Four is the optimal team number. Before the exercise, it is important to familiarize participants with the structure of an argument and the requirements for effective argumentation.
If we create robots that can replace humans in performing work, this will lead to certain changes in the economy and employment. Galaxy N requests a decision: is it acceptable to invest resources in the development of robots? What arguments can you provide?
Allow time to investigate the issue. Then each team must present arguments for and against (having worked through the arguments and counter-arguments of the decision).
Each team reads out their arguments, the others listen, ask questions, and then vote. Before voting, it is important to remind them that the vote should be based on the strongest arguments. Participants can voluntarily explain why they are voting in a certain way and which arguments they find most convincing.
The decision of the plenary session is recorded on the board, then the next issue is considered.
Conduct a reflection activity.
Note:
You can inform the teams in advance of the space-themed role play, so participants can prepare names, costumes, and other attributes. This exercise resembles Descartes' Square, so it can be conducted before introducing participants to this technique. Four is the optimal team number. Before the exercise, it is important to familiarize participants with the structure of an argument and the requirements for effective argumentation.
Objective:
To help participants practice linking claims and arguments.
Number of participants:
4 to 25
Age range:
12+
Duration:
45–90 minutes
How to conduct:
Divide participants into groups of three or four and ask them to identify facts and statements that require proof (claims) in the following (or similar) list:
Provide the following connectors for linking claims and arguments:
- It snowed yesterday.
- Adults can also make mistakes.
- Even the most experienced speaker can give a bad speech.
- We bought a small TV.
- People read significantly less nowadays than in the past.
- Beer consumption in Germany has noticeably increased.
- Public transport networks across the globe are facing financial difficulties.
- Schoolchildren have nowhere to spend their free time.
- Everyone needs a mobile phone.
- I am tired.
- Everyone should know how to use a computer.
- It’s better to shop online.
Provide the following connectors for linking claims and arguments:
- because
- because of
- due to the fact that
- as
- since
- owing to
Example:
Everyone should know how to use a computer.
Claim + argument + illustration: Everyone needs a mobile phone. A mobile phone ensures seamless communication, organization, and access to information in everyday life, making it indispensable for everyone. For example, I rely on my mobile phone throughout my day: from checking the weather and my schedule in the morning, to navigating public transit routes and staying connected with colleagues. Without my phone, I would have lost a lot of time every day.
Ask teams to present their results and reflect on them.
Note:
Developing argumentation may take considerable time, so it is recommended to break the activity into two or three rounds.
Everyone should know how to use a computer.
Claim + argument + illustration: Everyone needs a mobile phone. A mobile phone ensures seamless communication, organization, and access to information in everyday life, making it indispensable for everyone. For example, I rely on my mobile phone throughout my day: from checking the weather and my schedule in the morning, to navigating public transit routes and staying connected with colleagues. Without my phone, I would have lost a lot of time every day.
Ask teams to present their results and reflect on them.
Note:
Developing argumentation may take considerable time, so it is recommended to break the activity into two or three rounds.
Objective:
To teach participants to identify the elements of argumentation: claim, reason, illustration.
Number of participants:
4 to 25
Age range:
12+
Duration:
15 minutes
How to conduct:
This exercise can be conducted at the beginning of a session as a warm-up activity or used to introduce the topic.
Divide the participants into groups of 4-6 people. Ask them to come up with team names.
Show or read aloud paragraphs from an argumentative text, each missing one element: claim, reason, or illustration. Ask the teams to write down the name of the missing element within 30-60 seconds. Collect and discuss the answers. After that, you can ask participants to complete the missing parts.
Sample paragraphs:
Answer: reasoning is missing.
Answer: illustration is missing.
Answer: claim is missing.
Divide the participants into groups of 4-6 people. Ask them to come up with team names.
Show or read aloud paragraphs from an argumentative text, each missing one element: claim, reason, or illustration. Ask the teams to write down the name of the missing element within 30-60 seconds. Collect and discuss the answers. After that, you can ask participants to complete the missing parts.
Sample paragraphs:
- What is missing?
Answer: reasoning is missing.
- What is missing?
Answer: illustration is missing.
- What is missing?
Answer: claim is missing.
Objective:
To help participants practice argumentation and the ability to develop others’ claims.
Number of participants:
2 to 25
Age range:
12+
Duration:
10-15 minutes
How to conduct:
This exercise can be used as a warm-up activity at the beginning of a session or unit. Have the group form pairs or groups of three and give each team a set of cards with statements. Instruct them to agree with the statement and support it with an additional argument. The mechanics of working in teams: one participant draws a card with a statement and adds an argument to the statement, then the next participant draws another card and adds an argument to their statement. If someone is stuck, the other group members help to come up with an argument. Set the time for the exercise or the number of rounds.
Example of statements:
It seems the IT market is at its peak now.
This is the best year for students.
YouTubers have become less interesting lately.
Smoking can be eradicated.
Being a flight attendant is one of the toughest jobs.
Working as an engineer is interesting.
Healthy eating is useless.
There are no downsides to internet use.
After the activity, hold a discussion with the whole group. You may ask participants why it might be useful to learn to provide arguments for something they disagree with.
Note:
You can extend the activity by asking participants to disagree with the statements and provide counterarguments. Note that the statements should be adapted to the participants' age.
It seems the IT market is at its peak now.
This is the best year for students.
YouTubers have become less interesting lately.
Smoking can be eradicated.
Being a flight attendant is one of the toughest jobs.
Working as an engineer is interesting.
Healthy eating is useless.
There are no downsides to internet use.
After the activity, hold a discussion with the whole group. You may ask participants why it might be useful to learn to provide arguments for something they disagree with.
Note:
You can extend the activity by asking participants to disagree with the statements and provide counterarguments. Note that the statements should be adapted to the participants' age.
Objective:
To teach participants to support their claims, develop, analyze, and evaluate arguments, as well as identify weak, irrelevant, and unacceptable arguments, fallacies and rhetorical tricks; to help participants practice public speaking skills and develop an attitude towards comprehensive examination of complex issues and consideration of alternatives.
Number of participants:
6 to 10
Age range:
14+
Duration:
Up to 90 minutes (including preparation)
How to conduct:
Materials:
Now to select a topic:
Session outline:
Brief introduction to debates (10 minutes)
Explanation of debate rules (5 minutes)
Debates (30-40 minutes)
Debate rules:
- An introductory presentation
- Whiteboard, flipchart, or projection screen for an argument map
Now to select a topic:
- The topic should be relatable and relevant to most participants and require no particular expertise in specific science or technology sectors.
- Preferably, the topic should be debatable, meaning there is no overwhelming consensus in society regarding it. Well-known ethical dilemmas, moral choice problems, and social issues are suitable for debating.
- A practical topic, e.g., related to interpersonal relationships, could also be chosen, e. g., "Who should pay the bill on a date"; a funny topic is also possible.
- The topic could be collaboratively selected from a list (e.g., by voting), chosen randomly or selected by the organizer upon the consideration of specific educational goals for the session. At the organizer's discretion, topics can be announced before the session, allowing participants to prepare arguments if desired.
- Random assignment of participants ensures more effective critical thinking training.
- Logical and critical thinking
- Ability to organize one’s thoughts
- Oral communication skills
- Empathy and tolerance for different viewpoints
- Self-confidence
- Teamwork skills
- Ability to focus on the essence of the problem
- Public speaking skills
Session outline:
Brief introduction to debates (10 minutes)
Explanation of debate rules (5 minutes)
Debates (30-40 minutes)
Debate rules:
- 30-40 minutes for one debate
- Two teams, 3-5 people each
- Before the debates begin, the resolution is announced and clarified. Participants choose whether they will agree or disagree with the resolution, form the affirmative and the negative team, respectively, and take their seats at the corresponding tables. Alternatively, the moderator may form teams at their discretion to ensure balanced team sizes.
- The moderator writes the resolution on the board.
- During the debates, the moderator carefully monitors the rules and order.
1st round:
Preparation:
Each team comes up with three to five arguments in support of their position within 5 minutes (the number of arguments usually depends on the participants' experience and reasoning speed; for less prepared groups, limit to two or three arguments).Presentation:*
Teams take turns presenting their arguments. The moderator records all arguments on the board. If necessary, the moderator asks for clarification or rephrasing of an argument.
If you are working with a more experienced audience, you can suggest that speakers deliver 90-second mini-speeches instead of simply listing their arguments. In this case, the audience can also evaluate the presentation. Team members can take turns speaking.
2nd round:
Preparation:
Each team comes up with counterarguments to the other teams’ arguments within 5 minutes.Presentation:
Teams take turns presenting their counterarguments. The moderator records all counterarguments on the board. If necessary, the moderator asks for clarification or rephrasing of a counterargument.
- 3rd round:
Preparation:
Each team comes up with rebuttals to the opponents' counter arguments within 5 minutes.Presentation:
Teams take turns presenting their rebuttals.
Note:
A 90-minute session can accommodate two rounds of debates. Throughout the debates, participants strive to adhere to the RAS criteria (relevant, acceptable, sufficient) when formulating their arguments and rebuttals. Spectators observe the debates and share their observations during the reflection phase.
Reflection:
Participants reflect and comment on the debates. Spectators provide their comments and observations. A general discussion follows: whose position seemed more convincing, which arguments were strong or weak, and whether there were any logical fallacies or tricks in the argumentation.
A 90-minute session can accommodate two rounds of debates. Throughout the debates, participants strive to adhere to the RAS criteria (relevant, acceptable, sufficient) when formulating their arguments and rebuttals. Spectators observe the debates and share their observations during the reflection phase.
Reflection:
Participants reflect and comment on the debates. Spectators provide their comments and observations. A general discussion follows: whose position seemed more convincing, which arguments were strong or weak, and whether there were any logical fallacies or tricks in the argumentation.
- Recommended literature:Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical self-defense. IDEA
This exercise is provided by L. Podymov, a critical thinking activist and the author of Pseudoscience (2018)